PowerPCs are on the way out. Intel chips are in. So you could actually compare Apples to actual apples.
The fastest Powerbook G4 is 4-5x slower than a Macbook Pro using a Intel Core Duo 1.67GHz
The fastest iMac G5 2.1GHz is 2-3x slower than a iMac Intel Core Duo 2.0
Just a minor tweek to what gray said.
1. Clock for clock the G5 is faster than the Pentium 4 architecture
2. Clock for clock the Yonah/Core Duo chip is faster than the G5
The Yonah architecture is the next generation of the Pentium-M - the mobile chip first designed by their Israel design team. It's small, faster at lower clock speeds, and uses less power than the past x86 chips, which you are referring to.
A dual-core 2Ghz Yonah which can outdo a 3Ghz P4 Prescott, and run much cooler, which is necessary in a case that thin (the iMac case) when cooling are space-limited.
That's why Apple made the transition from PowerPC to Intel because Intel's Core Duo tech was vastly more superior than anything IBM can or will offer in the near future.
Malicious programmers have access to OS X for over half a decade and still no problems.
|
Originally Posted by graywolf624
I guess I have to be the one to comment.. I hate to do this cause I prefer pcs, even though I also have two relatively new macs....
But here goes.
Processor speeds are not comparable between the x86 and g5 architecture. Why? One is risc the other is cisc(essentially has to do with pipelining.. look it up).
The g5 was risc, similar to most of your game processors. The reality is, a slower processed mac would perform as well as an x86 of a significantly higher value. The problem.. risc is more expensive then cisc.
Now with the mr wizard speech done.... I think the reality is macs and pcs have different purposes. Neither is better then the other and alot of it has to do with what your use to. I prefer my pc, but part of that is familiarity with it. I can no longer say that mac doesnt have its own software, even if I dont know most of it. I also cant say the pc can't do photo editing(duh).
I can say that the mac seems to be easier for the non computer expert to do complex tasks, especially related to high end media.
The pc is great if your an expert. But without being an expert any hacker could rip your windows box full of security wholes in the time it takes you to sneeze. While the macs certainly arent fullproof, it would take a dedicated hacker slightly longer because features are shut off out of the box.
So thats my take, for what its worth comming from someone who has used a computer since before many jw members were born.. (parents had a computer before I was born and I have memories of using one at sub 4 years of age.)
and has been x86 based since the first xt hit the scene, yet only used a mac for about 2 years.
|